Alice Fox

1. 1. patient placed at significant risk due to inadequate discharge monitoring

   “1. [name redacted] had spent a lengthy period in the general hospital discharge lounge, during which time which she would not have had close checks and observations as compared to ward- based care. She did not arrive at the rehabilitation hospital until late at night and so did not have the usual core admission assessments. Such situations appear to me to have the potential to place patients such as [name redacted] at significant risk. Given that there would usually be three parties involved in the transfer (the”

2. 2. delayed infection detection and treatment

   “[name redacted] had signs of infection to the surgical site on arrival at the rehabilitation hospital and should have had more robust clinical review but confirmation of infection and referral back to the general hospital did not occur until her blood results were reviewed 3 days later. There had been opportunity to expedite the blood results. On the evidence at inquest there is reason to think that the rehabilitation staff were falsely reassured by a low NEWS score whereas there was suspected infection”

No published response was found on judiciary.uk.